Smt. Madhavi Vinukonda

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Khammam, PDJ Court Complex · Khammam · Telangana

SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA, II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, is posted at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana, India. 8,612 court orders on record since 2023. 26 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

8,612

Total Orders

Judgments

309

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/2655/2019 Convicted

The SHO-PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Pashuvula Naveen

28 Aug 2025

1 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. V. Madhavi

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam. FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam.

(Dated, this, the 28th day of August, 2025)

CALENDAR CASE No. 2655 OF 2019

Between :

The State through Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S.

..Complainant

And

1. Pashuvula Naveen, S/o Lingaiah, 27 years, Painting works, R/o Manchikanti Nagar, Khanapuram, Khammam.

2. Kallepalli Sampath @ Jampanna, S/o Narasimha Rao,27 years, Auto Driver, R/o Ramanagutta, Khammam.

3. Avula Prasad, S/o Venkatrao, 28 years, Auto Driver, R/o Saradhinagar, Khammam

4. Kandi Anji Babu, S/o Venkanna, 27 years, Auto driver, R/o Gubbagurthi (V), Konijerla Mandal.

…..Accused No.1 to 4

This case is coming up before for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.Dilip Kumar, Counsel for the Accused No.1, 2 and 4; Sri. Syed Amjad Pasha, Counsel for Accused no.3, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S., filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused inCr.No 165 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411

IPC.

2 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

2.The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet are that:

On 24.5.2019 at 1800 hours, the defacto-complainant by name T. Venkateswarlu came to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that on 16.5.2019 at about 7:15 am, he along with his wife went to Hyderabad for health checkup by locking the fromt door of their house and that he, on receiving information through LW3/J. Nageswar Rao about the lock breaking, returned to his house and noticed that the iron almirah and cupboard were broken and that one gold pusthela thradu weighing about 45 grams worth of Rs.90,000/- was stolen by some unknown persons. Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Cr.No.165/2019 for the offence under section 457, 380 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW9/SaiRamana examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing panch witnesses PW-3 and LW4/Pavan Kumar, utilized the services of SDFP Unit, collected chance prints at the scene. LW8/B. Naresh, SI Finger print expert collected chance prints from the spot and found that the chance print was identical with right thumb impression of A1. While the investigation was in progress, 04.7.2019 at 1200 hours, LW9/SaiRamana, Inspector of Police arrested A1 to A4 and during interrogation, in the presence of PW4 and LW7/Srinivas, A1 to A4 confessed the guilt of the present case and also other cases. The stolen property pertaining to his case i.e. MO1 was recovered from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators under the cover of panchanama in Cr.No.147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli. The accused persons also confessed some more thefts in various places and the stolen properties were recovered. The accused no.1 to 4 were arrested and produced them before the Court towards judicial custody. basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama. The accused no.1 to 4 were produced before the Court on executing PT Warrant in the instant case. After completion of entire investigation of investigation, charge sheet has been filed 3 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

against the Accused NO.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 and 411

IPC.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.457 and 380, 411

IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4. On appearance the Accused No.1 to 4, copies of the charge sheet and enclosing documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sec.457, 380, 411 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the

Accused persons in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6 and MO1.

6. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material evidence against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, having understood the same, the accused No.1 to 4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

4 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 IPC, the prosecution shall establish that the theft of MO1 was committed in the house of PW-1 as per Ex.P-1 report by trespassing into his house and that the accused are the persons who committed such theft at the relevant time and further that the stolen property MO1 was recovered the possession of the accused

P O I N T No.1:

10. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. His testimony is that on 25.9.2014 he along with his wife went to Hyderabad and after three or four days and on receiving information through his neighbour LW3/Nageswar Rao that the doors of his house were found opened and it appears that theft was committed in their house, he came to house and found the door of his house was opened and all the articles were in pell mell condition. PW1 further deposed that he noticed that one gold nuptial thread worth of Rs.50,000/- was stolen from his house and that he lodged a report with the Police. During the cross examination,

PW1 deposed that he was retired from service as the Government Teacher. He denied that he does not know the contents of the report and that he did not submit any receipt with respect of MO1 to the police. It is admitted by PW1, he did not mention the reasons for delay of 14 days in the report.

5 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

11.PW.2/T.Jhansi is the wife of PW1. It is her testimony that about five years ago, she along PW1 went to Hyderabad by locking the doors of their house and after 10 days, on receiving information through his neighbour LW3/Nageswar Rao that the doors of house was found opened and it appears that theft was committed in their house, they came to the house and found the door of his house was opened and that one gold nuptial thread was stolen from their house. PW2 deposed in his cross examination that he did not submit any receipt or bill with respect of MO1 to the police and that Police did not examine her.

12.PW.3 is one of the mediators of the scene of offence panchanama and his testimony is that on 25-05-2019 at about 6:30 p.m. CI of Police summoned him to the house of PW1, conducted panchanama in respect of theft, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of LW4/Pavan Kumar after which, the Police obtained his signature on the Crime Detail Form. During the cross examination by the defence counsel, PW3 deposed that the CI of police summoned him to the scene of offence and that the summons were not issued to him in writing. PW3 further deposed that the CI of Police, PW1, LW4/Pavan Kumar were present by the time he reached the scene of offence and that the CI of Police drawn rough sketch in his presence. PW3 denied that he did not visit the scene of offence and that police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. It is denied by PW3 that he is deposing false to help PW1 as he is acquainted to him. During the cross examination by the Counsel for Accused No.3, PW3 deposed that he went to the Police station and admitted that he signed his signature at the

Police station when he accompanied PW1.

6 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

13.PW.4 is the one of the mediators for Confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that on 4.7.2019 at 12:00 p.m, CI of Police summoned him to the place opposite to Current

Office, Khanapuram Haveli and he went to the spot and noticed four persons along with police an LED TV and auto ricksaw and that during inquiry the said persons disclosed their names as Pasuvula Naveen, Sampath, Prasad and Anjibabu and that they further divulged that they indulged in committed thefts and that they committed theft of GOLD NUPTIAL

THREAD in a house at Pandurangapuram, Vidyanagar and further stated that the accused committed several other thefts at various places. PW4 deposed that LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings and that P. Naveen (accused no.1) lead them to his house situated at Venugopalnagar, Khanapuram Haveli at 1500 hours and showed them, the stolen gold nuptial thread MO1. PW4 identified A1 to A4 who were pesent in the Court hall as the said four persons and specifically identified A1 as the said P. Naveen. PW4 deposed during the cross examination that he was working at

MRO Office, Khammam Urban, Khanapuram Haveli at the relevant time and that while he was on duty at UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli on that day, CI of police summoned him and that no summons in writing were issued to him by the Police. PW4 deposed that the

Tahsildar was his superior and that on receiving phone call from the CI of Police, he intimated the same to the Tashilar who in turn issued oral permission to act as mediator.

PW4 deposed that the distance between UPH colony and the spot is about 2 kms and that the CI of police, two policemen and A1 to A4 were present by the time he reached the spot situated in front of the main gate of current office on the road leads to Yellandu. He admitted that the said road is a busy road with several commuters. PW4 testified that the confessional statement was drafted by the Police but he does not know the name of the police who drafted confession panchanama which was commenced at 12:00pm and concluded at 1:30p.m consists of 5 to 6 pages. PW4 testified that he along with 7 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

LW6/Srinivas signed one signature per page in total 6 pages and that he does not have idea of the registration number, make and model of the autorickshaw. PW4 deposed that the TV was 55 inches samsung company and that the police did not obtain my signatures on blank papers at Police station. It is denied by PW4 that the accused did not confess the guilt of any offence and that the panchanama was prepared at the police station and no confession panchanama was conducted by police in his presence. It is further denied by

PW1 that MO1 was not seized from the possession of the accused in his presence.

14.PW.5 / M. Sai Ramana is the Investigating Officer. His testimony in his chief examination is that on 24.5.2019 at 1800 hours, he received a report from PW1, basing on which, he registered case in Cr .No. 165/2019 under section 457, 380 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in the Police station. Thereafter he informed clues team/Finger print

Unit, Khammam, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in the presence of

PW3 and LW4/Pavan Kumar, he recorded the statements of PW2, LW3/Nageswar Rao. At the same time, PW6 visited the scene of offence, collected chance prints from the scene of offence and after comparision, PW5 collected report on 27.5.2019 which depicts that the chance prints are identical with the finger prints of A1. While efforts were in progress to apprehend accused, on 4.7.2019 at 1200 hours, PW5 apprehended accused no. 1 to 4 opposite to Current Office, Khanapuram Haveli and secured the presence of mediators and during the interrogation in the presence of mediators in Cr.No. 147/2019 of PS

Khanapuram Haveli, accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence pertaining to this case apart from other offences. Basing on the confession report,

PW5 along with mediators proceeded to the house of A1 at 1500 hours and seized the stolen property pertaining to this case i.e. MO.1 and other cases from the house of A1.

8 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

Later, he brought accused persons and the seized property to the police station and their arrest was affected in Cr.No. 147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli and produced them

before the Court towards judicial custody. On 18.7.2019, he produced accused no. 1 to 4

before this Court in the instant case on executing PT Warrant and after completion of

investigation, he filed the chargesheet u/sec 457, 380 IPC. During the cross examination of PW5, he is admitted that there is almost 20 days delay in lodging the report from the date of the alleged incident and that the FIR was sent to the court on 13.6.2019 with a delay of one day from the registration of the same. PW5 further deposed that he did not submit any document to show that they went to Hyderabad at the relevant time. PW5 further admitted that the date and time of dispatch of the FIR is shown as 12.6.2019 at 1200 hours. He further deposed that he affixed panch slips to the seized property and that the photographs of the case property were not taken. PW5 deposed that the case property was deposited before the court. PW5 further stated that there is malkhana to store the case property and a register would be maintained and that the sl.no. of such entry in the register is not mentioned in the charge sheet. PW5 further deposed that the scene of offence is a partially busy location and it would be easy to secure the presence of inhabitants of the locality and that the house numbers of the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama are not mentioned in CDF. It is admitted by PW5 that the confession statement was recorded opposite to Current Office and denied that he did not secure the presence of inhabitants of the said locality and he further stated that he did not issue any requisition in writing to the mediators to act as mediators. PW5 admitted that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on each and every page of confession cum seizure panchanama and that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on first page of seizure panchanama and further that the signatures of the accused persons are not obtained on confession cum seizure panchanama and also on seizure panchanama.

9 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

PW5 denied that the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C is not in his writing and that he did not visit the scene of offence. It is admitted by PW5 that he did not draft the confession cum seizure panchanama in his writing and that the name of scribe is not mentioned in confession cum seizure panchanama. It is denied by PW5 that he foisted false cases and that the accused persons are falsely implicated in all the pending cases in the Police station and that the accused persons are no way concerned with this case.

15.PW.6 / B.Ramesh is the Finger Print Expert. PW6 deposed in his chief examination that on 24.5.2019, he received a requisition from PW5 to visit the scene of offence and to collect chance prints in Cr.No. 165/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and collected four chance prints from the scene of offence that One on stainless steal box, second oniron alrimah locker door, two chance prints on wooden cupboard were lifted. PW6 further deposed that when he processed the chance prints at his office and on the examination of clarity and comparision, one chance turned out to be unfit for comparision and the remaining three finger prints were fit for comparision. Then he matched the three finger prints with the database of Telangana

State Finger print bureau and found that the chance print lifted from iron almirah was matched with the right thumb finger print of Pasuvula Naveen (A1) and informed the same to the Director, Finger Print Bureau who in turn cross checked and conformed the same through radio message dt. 25.5.2019. Thereafter, on 27.5.2019 he issued identical report along with identical chart to PW5. During the cross examination by the defence counsel,

PW6 deposed that he received phone call initially on 24.5.2019 and thereafter a requisition was issued to him in writing on 24.5.2019 immediately. It is admitted by PW6 that there is delay from the date of the offence and the date of sending requisition to him 10 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

and that there may be slightly differences in the finger prints due to the weather conditions.

It is denied by PW6 that when a person touched the finger prints on the same place it would not be difficult to lift the chance finger prints. He further denied that he did not visit the scene of offence and that he did not lift the chance finger prints. It is further denied by

PW6 that his version that the finger prints of A1 were matched with the chance prints is false and that he is deposing false to help the police.

16.On perusal of the entire evidence available on record, the defacto- complainant/PW-1 and PW2 are consistent and corroborated with each other that the theft of MO1 was committed in their house at the relevant time mentioned in Ex.P1/report when they went to Hyderabad and the theft was come to their notice when they came to their house on receiving phone call from LW3/Nageswara Rao that the doors of their house was found opened and the theft seemed to be committed in their house. PW3 who is the mediator to scene of offence panchanama testified that police conducted panchanama in his presence at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to discredit the testimonies of PW-1 to PW2 with regard to the theft. The testimony of PW4 who is the investigating officer is corroborated with the evidence of PW1 to PW3. Thus, it can be held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the theft of MO1 was committed in the house of

PW1 as mentioned in Ex.P1/report.

17.Now let us see whether the prosecution is succeeded in proving that the accused No.1 to 4 committed the theft at the house of PW1. PW.4 is the one of the mediators for Confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that on 4.7.2019 at 12:00 p.m, during inquiry A1 to A4 and divulged that they indulged in committed thefts and that they committed theft of MO1 in a house at Pandurangapuram, Vidyanagar and further 11 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

stated that the accused committed several other thefts at various places and that

LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings.

PW4 further testified that P. Naveen (accused no.1) lead them to his house situated at

Venugopalnagar, Khanapuram Haveli at 1500 hours and showed them MO1. PW4 identified A1 to A4 who were present in the Court hall as the said four persons and specifically identified A1 as the said P. Naveen. PW5 who is the Investigating Officer deposed in consonance with PW5. PW6 deposed that on matching three finger prints fit for comparision out of four chance prints lifted at the scene of offence with the database of

Telangana State Finger print bureau and he found that the chance print lifted from iron almirah was matched with the right thumb finger print of Pasuvula Naveen (A1) and that the Director, Finger Print Bureau also cross checked and conformed the same through radio message dt. 25.5.2019, following which, he issued identical report along with identical chart to PW5 on 27.5.2019. The testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 are consistent and corroborated with each other with regard to that the accused No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft and that the stolen property i.e MO1 were recovered from the possession of A1. Moreover the finger print of A1 matched with chance finger print lifted at the spot as testified PW6.

18.At this juncture, it is relevant to take note that section 25 of Indian Evidence Act envisages that the statement recorded by the police officer in police custody is not admissible in evidence. However, Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act contemplates that when any fact is deposed to has discovered in consequence of information received from the accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, such portion leading to recovery of any material objects is only admissible in evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 coupled with the Ex.P-3/relevant portion in 12 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

confession cum seizure panchanama depicting the seizure of MO1 to prove that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft at the house of PW-1. The testimonies of PW-4 and

PW-5 are in consonance with each other that the accused No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft of M.O.1 and that the same was recovered from the house of accused

No.1 basing on the confessional statement of A-1 recorded by PW-5/Investigating Officer.

The confession given by the accused No.1 to 4 while they were in the police custody is not admissible in evidence as envisaged under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, the information leading to recovery of M.O.1 is admissible in evidence. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 coupled with Ex.P-3/relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama, the prosecution could able to establish that M.O.1 was recovered from the house of accused No.1 at the instance of his statement.

19.The record manifests that, despite receipt of notice of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.

914/2025, dt. 14.8.2025 filed by PW-1 seeking return of M.O.1 towards interim custody, the accused persons did not choose to assert any claim over the M.O.1.

20.At this juncture, the presumption under illustration of Sec.114(a) of Indian Evidence

Act can be drawn which contemplates:

“that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”

21.The record manifests that there is no explanation offered by the accused No.1 accounting for the possession or knowledge about whereabouts of the M.O.1. Thus, it can be presumed that accused No. 1 concealed M.O.1 knowingly that the same was stolen property. However, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence who witnessed that the 13 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

accused No.1 to 4 committed theft of M.O.1. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft of M.O.1 from the house of PW-1 beyond all reasonable doubt, but prosecution could able to establish the ingredients of Sec.411 IPC against the accused No. 1 for possessing stolen property knowingly the same was stolen property.

22.From the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Sec.457 and 380

IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.

23.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 457 and 380 IPC, however, the accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.248(2)

Cr.P.C.The M.O.1 was returned to PW-1 towards interim custody vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.914/2019, dated 14.8.2019, shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal

time.

(Directly typed by me on the laptop provided by Hon'ble High Court, on 27.8.2025 on 27.8.2025 from 5:58 p.m. to 6:51 p.m., again prepared fair on the laptop on 28.8.2025, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of August, 2025).

FAC II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

24.When the accused No.1 questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused

No.1 pleaded for a lenenient view by stating that “ he has two female minor children and old aged parents" and prayed for mercy of the Court.

14 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

25.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to invoke Sec.360

Cr.P.C., or Sec.3 and 4 of Probation of Offender Act. However, considering the nature of offence and prayer of the accused No.1, I am inclined to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence.

26.The accused No.1 is found guilt for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC and they are convicted in terms of Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of (6 ) Months . The period already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

27.The accused No.1 shall undergo the above sentence concurrently along with the sentence imposed in CC No.2614 of 2019, CC 2764 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

28. The accused No.1 is hereby appraised his right to prefer an appeal. The copy of judgment shall be given to the accused on free of cost.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW-1: T. Venkateswarlu. PW-2: T. Jhansi. PW-3: J. Suresh. PW-4: M. Balaiah. PW-5: M. Sai Ramana, Investigating Officer.

15 CC.No. 2655 of 2019,

Dt: 28-08-2025

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report. Ex.P-2: Crime detail form Ex.P-3: Relevant portion in attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-4: First Information Report. Ex.P-5: Report dt. 25.5.2019 issued by PW6. Ex.P-6: Identical report along with idential chart.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.:

M.O.1: Gold nuptial thread

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

CC/2608/2019 Convicted

The SHO-PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Pashuvula Naveen

28 Aug 2025

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. V. Madhavi III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam. FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam.

(Dated this, the 28th day of August, 2025)

CALENDAR CASE No. 2608 OF 2019

Between :

The State through Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S.

..Complainant

And

1. Pashuvula Naveen, S/o Lingaiah, 27 years, Painting works, R/o Manchikanti Nagar, Khanapuram, Khammam.

2. Kallepalli Sampath @ Jampanna, S/o Narasimha Rao,27 years, Auto Driver, R/o Ramanagutta, Khammam.

3. Avula Prasad, S/o Venkatrao, 28 years, Auto Driver, R/o Saradhinagar, Khammam

4. Kandi Anji Babu, S/o Venkanna, 27 years, Auto driver, R/o Gubbagurthi (V), Konijerla Mandal.

…..Accused No.1 to 4

This case is coming up before for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.Dilip Kumar, Counsel for the Accused No.1, 2 and 3; Sri, Amjad Ali, Counsel for Accused no.3, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the m atter is having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S., filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused inCr.No 192 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411

IPC.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

2.The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet are that:

On 12.6.2019 at 1100 hours, the defacto-complainant by name Koyaneni

Satyanarayana came to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that on 22.5.2019 at about 9:00 am, he along with his family members went to Hyderabad on some work by locking the northern side door of their house and when they returned on 12.6.2019, at 9:00 am, they noticed that the door lock was broken and that the iron almirah in their house was broken and further noticed that 1) two gold rings weighing about 10 gms, 2) six gold rupulu weighing about 3 grams, one pair of silver anklets weighing 80 gms, cash of Rs.5,000/- were stolen by some unknown persons. Basing on the report, the police registered it as a case in Cr.No.192/2019 for the offence under section 457, 380 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW10/Sai Ramana examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing panch witnesses PW2 and LW7/Guruswamy, utilized the services of SDFP Unit, collected chance prints at the scene. While the investigation was in progress, on 04.7.2019 at 1200 hours on reliable information about A1 to A4, they were in possession of stolen Samsung TV of this case and was proceeding in auto bearing no. AP 20 TC 4527 to Khammam to dispose it. During interrogation in the presence of PW3 and

LW9/B.Srinivas and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed their guilt of this offence and other offences and that out of stolen property of this case. They sold six gold small rupulu on the following day at Khammam Railway station to unknown persons for

Rs.6,000/- and spent the sale proceeds and the stolen cash of Rs.5,000/- for their expenses. and that the stolen property pertaining to this case i.e. two gold rings, one pair of silver anklets from the possession of A2 in the presence of mediators under the cover of panchanama in Cr.No.147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli. The accused persons also

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

confessed some more thefts in various places and the stolen properties were recovered.

The accused no.1 to 4 were arrested and produced them before the Court towards judicial custody. basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama, the accused no.1 to 4 were produced before the Court on executing PT Warrant. After completion of entire investigation of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the Accused NO.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 and 411 IPC.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.457 and 380 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4.On appearance the Accused No.1 to 4, copies of the charge sheet and enclosing documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sec.457, 380, 411 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the

Accused persons in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4and MO1 to MO3.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the

offences punishable under sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9.In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under section 457, 380, 411 IPC, the prosecution shall establish that the accused committed theft of MO1 to MO3, other gold ornamaents cash of

Rs.5,000/- in the house of PW-1 as per Ex.P-1/ report by trespassing into his house and that the MO1 to MO3 were recovered from the possession of accused.

P O I N T:

10.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and he deposed that on 22-05-2019, he went to

Hyderabad from Khammam to visit his children and returned to his house situated at

H.No. 5-7-201/5, Road no. 1, Sri Nagar colony, Mamatha College road, Khammam on 12-06-2019 at about 09.00 a.m and on entering into his home from Eastern side door, he found that northern side door of his house was broken and found the wooden alaramah was broke opened and the clothes were in pelmel condition in the room. PW1 further deposed that he further noticed that one Gold Sai baba ring, one Gold Anjaneya Swami ring, Silver anklets weighing about 8 tulas, 6 gold lakshmi devi Rupulu weighing about 3 grams and cash of Rs. 5,000/- were missing and immediately, he lodged report with police. During the cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he lodged report on 12.6.2019 in the morning hours. PW1 further deposed that he left his house after checking his articles

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

in the house and denied that no theft was committed in his house. It is denied by PW1 that no theft was committed in his house and that he foisted false case at the instance of

Police.

11.PW.2 is the one of the mediators for Scene of Offence panchanama and his testimony is that on 12-06-2019 at about 12.00 p.m, the SI of Police summoned him to the house of PW1 and conducted panchanama by mentioning the boundaries and drafted rough sketch in respect of the theft in his presence and in the presence of

LW7/Guruswamy. During the cross-examination, PW2 deposed that his signature was obtained at around 12:00 p.m and that he signed at the Police Station. PW2 further admitted that his signature was obtained at the Police Station.

12.PW.3/M.Balaiah is the one of mediators for the confession cum seizure panchanama and he deposed in his chief examination that on 4.7.2019 at 12:00 p.m, Cl of Police summoned him to the place opposite to Current Office, Khanapuram Haveli and accordingly, he went to the spot and noticed four persons along with police, an LED TV and an auto ricksaw at the spot. PW3 further stated that during inquiry the said persons disclosed your names as Pasuvula Naveen(A1), Sampath(A2), Prasad(A3), Anjibabu(A4) and further divulged that they indulged in committing several thefts and including the theft of two rings, one pair of silver anklets in a house at Srinagar. PW3 testified that

LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings. It is further testified by PW3 that Sampath(accused no.2) lead them to his house situated at

Ramanagutta at 4:30 p.m. and showed them two rings I.e.. one Saibaba ring, one

Anjaneyaswamy ring, one pair of silver anklets weighing about 2 tulas. PW3 identified A1

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

to A4 who were present in the Court hall as the said four persons and also specifically identified A2 as Sampath. On confronting MO1 to MO3, PW3 identified the same were recovered in his presence. During the Cross examination, PW3 deposed that he was working at MRO Office, Khammam Urban, Khanapuram Haveli at the relevant time and that while he was on duty at UPH Colony, Khanapuram Haveli on that day, the CI of police summoned him and that summons in writing were issued to him by the Police. PW3 further stated that the Tahsildar was his superior and that on receiving phone call from the

CI of Police, he intimated the same to the Tashilar who in turn issued oral permission to act as mediator. It is stated by PW3 that the distance between UPH colony and the spot is about 2 kms. and that the CI of police, two policemen and A1 to A4 were present by the time he reached the spot which was situated in front of the main gate of current office on the road leads to Yellandu. It is admitted by PW3 that the said road is a busy road with several commuters. PW3 further stated that the confessional statement was drafted by the

Police and that he does not know the name of the police who drafted confession panchanama consists of 5 to 6 pages and that the panchanama proceedings was commenced at 12:00pm and concluded at 1:30p.m. PW3 further deposed that he along with LW6/Srinivas signed one signature per page in total 6 pages and that he does not have idea of the registration number, make and model of the autorickshaw but the TV was 55 inches samsung company. It is stated by PW3 that the police did not obtain my signatures on blank papers at Police station and denied that the accused did not confess the guilt of any offence and that the panchanama was prepared at the police station. He further denied that no confession panchanama was conducted by police in his presence and that MO1 to MO3 were not seized from the possession of the accused in his presence.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

13.PW.4 / M.Sai Ramana is the Investigating Officer. His testimony is that on 12.6.2019 at 1100 hours, he received a report from PW1, basing on which he registered case in Cr .No. 192/2019 under section 457, 380 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in the Police station, he visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in the presence of PW2 and LW7/GuruSwamy, recorded the statements of LW2/Aruna, LW3/Yogesh,

LW4/Nagamani, LW5.Venkateswar Rao and that while efforts were in progress to apprehend the accused, on 4.7.2019 at 1200 hours he apprehended accused no. 1 to 4 opposite to Current Office, Khanapuram Haveli and secured the presence of mediators.

During the interrogation in the presence of mediators in Cr.No. 147/2019 of PS

Khanapuram Haveli, accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence pertaining to this case apart from other offences. PW4 further testified that basing on the confession statement, he along with mediators proceeded to the house A2 situated at Ramana gutta at 1630 hours and seized the stolen property pertaining to this case i.e.

MO.1 to MO3 and other cases from the house of A2. Later he brought the accused persons and the seized property to the police station and their arrest was affected in

Cr.No. 147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli and produced them before the Court towards judicial custody. PW4 further deposed that 18.7.2019, he produced accused no. 1 to 4

before this Court in the instant case on executing PT Warrant and after completion of

investigation, he filed the charge sheet u/sec 457, 380 IPC. During the cross-examination,

PW4 admitted that there is almost 9 days delay in lodging the report from the date of the alleged incident and that there is correction of the date in the report/Ex.P1 and further that

FIR was sent to the court I.e on 27.5.2019 with a delay of three days from the registration of the same. PW4 further deposed that PW1 did not submit any document to show that

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

they went to Hyderabad at the relevant time. and admitted that the date and time of dispatch of the FIR is shown as 24.5.2019 at 1900 hours. He further deposed that he affixed panch slips to the seized property and that the photographs of the case property were not taken and that the case property was deposited before the court. PW4 further deposed that there is malkhana to store the case property and a register would be maintained and that the scene of offence is a partially busy location and it would be easy to secure the presence of inhabitants of the locality. PW4 stated that the house numbers of the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama are not mentioned in CDF and admitted that the confession statement was recorded opposite to Current Office. It is denied by PW4 that he did not secure the presence of inhabitants of the said locality and that he did not issue any requisition in writing to the mediators to act as mediators. It is admitted by PW4 that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on each and every page of confession cum seizure panchanama and that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on first page of seizure panchanama. It is further admitted that the signatures of the accused persons are not obtained on confession cum seizure panchanama and also on seizure panchanama. It is denied by PW4 that he did not issue requisition to the finger print expert in writing and that the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C are not in his writing. It is denied by PW4 that he did not visit the scene of offence. PW4 admitted that he did not draft the confession cum seizure panchanama in his writing and that the name of scribe is not mentioned in confession cum seizure panchanama. He denied that he foisted false cases and that the accused persons are falsely implicated in all the pending cases in the Police station and that the accused persons are no way concerned with this case.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

14.On perusal of the entire evidence available on record, the defacto- complainant/PW-1 deposed that on 12.6.2019 he noticed the theft of MO1 to MO3, other gold ornaments and cash was committed when he along with their family members were away from their house and went to Hyderabad on 22.5.2019. PW2 who is the mediator to the scene of offence panchanama deposed in his chief examination that police summoned him to the house of PW1 12.6.2019 at 12:00 p.m. and conducted panchanama in respect of theft. It is deposed by PW2 that he signed at Police station and admitted that the police prepared rough sketch at the police station and subsequently, his signature was obtained. The testimony of PW4 who is the investigating officer is corroborated with the evidence of PW1. It is apposite to take note that as per PW1, he noticed that theft was committed in his house on 12.6.2019 and on the same day he lodged a report. hence, there is no delay in lodging the report. There is nothing on record to discredit the testimony of PW-1 with regard to the theft. As could be seen from the record, the FIR was registred on 12.6.2019 and there is no delay in lodging the report. Thus, the testimony of

PW1 coupled with Ex.P1/report and Ex.P4/FIR is cogent and trustworthy to establish that the theft of MO1 to MO3 other gold ornaments and cash was committed from their house when PW1 and his family members were away from their house at the relavant time.

15.Now let us see whether the prosecution is succeeded in proving that the accused No.1 to 4 committed such theft at the house of PW1. PW-3 deposed that the

Police summoned him to the place opposite to Current Office, Khanapuram Haveli and he went to the spot and noticed four persons along with police an LED TV and auto ricksaw at the spot. During inquiry the said persons disclosed their names as Pasuvula Naveen,

Sampath, Prasad and Anjibabu and further divulged that they indulged in committed thefts

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

and theft of ear studs, three small rings, one matti, anklets in a house near water plant at

Prashanti nagar and several other thefts at various places. PW3 further stated that

LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings and that Sampath(accused no.2) lead them to his house situated at Ramanagutta at 4:30 p.m.

and showed them the ear studs, three small rings, one matti, one pair of silver anklets.

PW3 identified A1 to A4 who were present in the Court hall as the said four persons and

A2 as the said Sampath among them. PW4 who is the Investigating Officer deposed in consonance with PW4. The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 are consistent and corroborated with each other that the accused No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft and that the stolen property i.e MO1 to MO3 were recovered from the possession of

A2.

16.At this juncture, it is relevant to refer section 25 of Indian Evidence Act which envisages that the statement recorded by the police officer in police custody is not admissible in evidence. However, Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act contemplates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from the accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, such portion leading to recovery of any material objects is only admissible in evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with the

Ex.P-3/relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama depicting the seizure of

MO1 to MO3 to prove that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft at the house of PW-1.

The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 are corroborated with each other that the accused

No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft of M.O.1 to MO3 and that the same was recovered from the house of accused No.2 basing on the confessional statement of A-2

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

recorded by PW-4/Investigating Officer. The confession given by the accused No.1 to 4 while they were in the police custody is not admissible in evidence as envisaged under

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, the information leading to recovery of M.O.1 to MO3 is admissible in evidence under section 27 of Indian Evidence Atc. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with Ex.P-3/relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama, the prosecution could able to establish that MO.1 to MO.3 were recovered from the house of accused No.2.

17.The record manifests that, despite receipt of notice of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.

955/2025, dt. 29.7.2025 filed by PW-1 seeking return of M.O.1 to MO.3 towards interim custody, the accused persons did not choose to assert any claim over the M.O.1 to MO3.

18.At this juncture, the presumption under illustration of Sec.114(a) of Indian

Evidence Act can be drawn which contemplates:

“that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”

19.The record manifests that there is no explanation offered by the accused

No.2 accounting for the possession or knowledge about whereabouts of the M.O.1 to

MO3. Thus, it can be presumed that accused No. 2 concealed the M.Os.1 to 3 knowingly that the same was stolen property. However, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence who witnessed that the accused committing theft of M.O.1 to MO3.The prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons committed theft of M.O.1 to MO3 from the house of PW-1 beyond all reasonable doubt, but prosecution could able to

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

establish the ingredients of Sec.411 IPC against the accused No. 2 for possessing stolen property.

20.From the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under

Sec.457 and 380 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused No. 2 for the offence under Section.411 IPC.

21.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 457 and 380 IPC, however, the accused No.2 found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.248(2)

Cr.P.C.The M.O.1 to M.O.3 which were returned to PW-1 towards interim custody vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.955/2022, dated 29.7.2025 of this Court, shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

(Directly typed by me on the laptop provided by Hon'ble High Court, on 27.8.2025 from 12: 18 p.m. to 1:10 p.m. and again from 3:30pm. to 4:14 pm., corrected on 28.8.2025 on the laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of August, 2025).

FAC II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

22.When the accused No.2 questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused

No.2 pleaded for a lenenient view by stating that " he has seven years old boy and old aged mother suffering from illhealth and the accused No.2 prayed for mercy of the Court.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

23.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to invoke

Sec.360 Cr.P.C., or Sec.3 and 4 of Probation of Offender Act. However, considering the nature of offence and prayer of the accused No.2, I am inclined to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence.

24.The accused No.2 is found guilt for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC and he is convicted in terms of Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of (6) Months . The period already undergone by the accused

No.2 shall be given set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

25.The accused No.2 shall undergo the above sentence concurrently along with the sentence imposed in CC 2614 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

26. The accused No.2 is hereby appraised his right to prefer an appeal. The copy of judgment shall be given to the accused on free of cost.

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW-1: K. Satyanarayana.. PW-2: Ch. Narasimha Rao. PW-3: M. Balaiah.

CC.No. 2608 of 2019

Dt: 28-08-2025

PW-4:M. Sai Ramana, Investigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report. Ex.P-2: Crime detail form Ex.P-3: Relevant portion in attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-4: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.:

M.O.1: Sai Baba ring. M.O.2: Anjaneya Swamy ring. M.O.3: Pair of silver anklets.

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

CC/2764/2019 Convicted

The SHO-PS Khanapuram Haveli vs Pashuvula Naveen

28 Aug 2025

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. V. Madhavi III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam. FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Khammam.

(Dated, this, the 28th day of August, 2025)

CALENDAR CASE No. 2764 OF 2019

Between :

The State through Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S.

..Complainant

And

1. Pashuvula Naveen, S/o Lingaiah, 27 years, Painting works, R/o Manchikanti Nagar, Khanapuram, Khammam.

2. Kallepalli Sampath @ Jampanna, S/o Narasimha Rao,27 years, Auto Driver, R/o Ramanagutta, Khammam.

3. Avula Prasad, S/o Venkatrao, 28 years, Auto Driver, R/o Saradhinagar, Khammam

4. Kandi Anji Babu, S/o Venkanna, 27 years, Auto driver, R/o Gubbagurthi (V), Konijerla Mandal.

…..Accused No.1 to 4

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S., filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused inCr.No 146 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet are that:

On 8.5.2019 at 1400 hours, the defacto-complainant by name M. Venkanna came to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that on he was constructing a building near Taruni Water Plant, Khanapuram and arranged a shed on the southern direction of the said building and that on 7.5.2019 at about 6:30 p.m., he kept the construction material in the shed and went ot his house by locking the shed and when he returned there on the following day at 8:00 am he noticed that ten cement bags, two crow bars, four colour Bins each weighing 20 litres and two Wallcare bags, all worth of Rs.16,000/- were stolen by unknown persons and requeted to take necessary action. Basing on the report, the police registered a case in Cr.No.146/2019 for the offence under section 457, 380 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW8/Yousuf Hussain examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing panch witnesses PW-2 and LW4/K.

Srinivasa Rao, utilized the services of SDFP Unit, collected chance prints at the scene.

Subsequently, PW4 took up further investigation on verifying the investigation done by then to be on correct and proper lines. While the investigation was in progress, on 04.7.2019 at 1200 hours , PW4 who is the Inspector of Police arrested A1 to A4 and during interrogation, in the presence of PW3 and LW7/Srinivas, A1 to A4 confessed the guilt of present case and also other cases and the stolen property pertaining to his case i.e. MO1 and MO2 were recovered from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators under the cover of panchanama in Cr.No.147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli. The accused persons also confessed some more thefts in various places and the stolen properties were recovered. The accused no.1 to 4 were arrested and produced them before the Court towards judicial custody. Basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama, the accused no.1 to 4 were produced before the Court on executing PT Warrant. After completion of entire investigation of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the Accused NO.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 and 411 IPC.

3.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sec.457 and 380 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4.Copies of the charge sheet and enclosing documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sec.457, 380, 411 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the

Accused persons in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried .

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4, MO1 and MO2

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for

the offences punishable under sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

PW-1 as per Ex.P-1 report by trespassing into his shed and that the accused No.1 to 4 are the persons who committed such theft at the relevant time and further that the stolen property were recovered from their possession.

P O I N T :

10.PW.1 deposed during his chief examination, deposed that he was constructing a house at Khanapuram Haveli near Taruni Water plant and that on 07-05-2019 he went to his house after locking the sheds beside his house which was used to store construction material and on the following day when he returned there, he noticed the door locks of the shed were broken and 10 bags of Cement, two Wall paint tins each weighing 20 lts, two

Crow bars two wall care bags were stolen. PW1 further testified that on the same day, he lodged the report with police. During cross examination, PW1 admitted the suggestion that he does do not know who committed the above said theft and denied that no theft was committed and that he foisted false case at the instance of police.

11.PW.2/P.Durga Rao is one of the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. His testimony is that on 08-05-2019 at about 15.00 hours, police conducted panchanama at

Prashanthi nagar with regard to theft of crow bars, Cement bags, paint bags committed at shed, drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW4/Srinivasa Rao.

PW2 deposed during the cross-examination that his signature was obtained on CDF at around 12.00 p.m. and that he signed at police station. PW2 further admitted that the police prepared rough sketch at the police station and subsequently obtained his signature. During cross examination, PW2 deposed that PW1 is his neighbor. While stating that he went to police station, PW2 denied that his signature was obtained at the police station and that he was deposing false at the instance of police about the theft of crow bars, Cement bags, paint bags and further that he does not know anything facts of the case.

12.PW.3/M.Balaiah, deposed in his chief examination that on 4.7.2019 at 12:00 p.m,

Cl of Police summoned him to the place opposite to Current Office, Khanapuram Haveli and accordingly, he went to the spot and noticed four persons along with police an LED TV and auto ricksaw at the spot and that during inquiry the accused no.1 to 4 disclosed their names as Pasuvula Naveen, Sampath, Prasad and Anjibabu and further divulged that they indulged in committing thefts and that they committed theft of Asian paints weighing 20 ltrs, 10 cement bags and crowbar in a shed at Prashanti nagar and several other thefts at various places. PW3 further deposed that LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings. It is further testified by PW1 that accused no.1 lead him to his house at 3:00 p.m. and showed them the Asian paints weighing 20 ltrs, crowbar and stated that 10 cement bags were sold and spent the sale proceeds were spent for personal use. PW3 identified A1 to A4 who were present in the Court hall as the said four persons and specifically identified A1 as Passuvula Naveen. During the cross examination, PW3 deposed that he was working at MRO Office, Khammam Urban,

Khanapuram Haveli at the relevant time and that while he was on duty at UPH Colony,

Khanapuram Haveli, the CI of police summoned him and that no summons in writing were issued to him by the Police. PW3 further testified that the Tahsildar was his superior and that on receiving phone call from the CI of Police, he intimated the same to the Tashilar who in turn issued oral permission to act as mediator. PW3 testified that the distance between UPH colony and the spot is about 2 kms and that the CI of police, two policemen and A1 to A4 were present by the time he reached the spot which is situated in front of the main gate of current office. It is admitted by PW3 that the said road is a busy road with several commuters. PW3 deposed that the confessional statement was drafted by the

Police and that he does not know the name of the police who drafted confession panchanama and that the panchanama was commenced at 12:00pm and concluded at 1:30p.m consists of 5 to 6 pages. PW3 further testified that he along with LW6/Srinivas signed one signature per page in total 6 pages. and that he does not have idea of the registration number, make and model of the autorickshaw but the TV was 55 inches

Samsung company. PW3 deposed that the police did not obtain his signatures on blank papers at Police station. PW3 denied that the accused did not confess the guilt of any offence and that the panchanama was prepared at the police station and further that MO1 and MO2 were not seized from the possession of the accused in his presence.

12. PW.4 / M.Sai Ramana, Investigating Officer deposed in his evidence that, on 8.5.2019 at 1400 hours, LW8/Yousuf Hussain received a report from PW1, basing on which he registered case in Cr .No. 146/2019 u/sec. 457, 380 IPC and during the course of investigation LW.8/Yousuf Hussain examined and recorded the statement of PW1 in the

Police station, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in the presence of

PW2 and LW4/Srinivas Rao, recorded the statements of LW2/Srinivas and LW3/Brahmam.

PW4 deposed that he subsequently, received CD file from LW8/Yousuf Hussain and verified the investigation done by then to be on correct and proper lines and took up further investigation and that while efforts were in progress to apprehend the accused, on 4.7.2019 at 1200 hours, he apprehended accused no. 1 to 4 opposite to Current Office,

Khanapuram Haveli and secured the presence of mediators and that during the interrogation in the presence of mediators in CrNo. 147/2019 of PS Khanapuram Haveli, accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence pertaining to this case apart from other offences. Basing on the confession report, he along with mediators proceeded to the house of A1 situated at Manchikanti nagar, Khanapuram

Haveli at 1500 hours and seized the stolen property pertaining to this case i.e. MO.1, MO2 and other cases from the house of A1. Later he brought the accused persons and the seized property to the police station and their arrest was affected in Cr.No. 147/2019 of PS

Khanapuram Haveli and produced them before the Court towards judicial custody. On 18.7.2019, he produced accused no. 1 to 4 before this Court in the instant case on executing PT Warrant and After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet under section 457, 380 IPC. During the cross-examination, PW4 deposed that there is one day delay in lodging the report from the date of the alleged incident. PW4 admitted that the

FIR was sent to the court with a delay of one day from the registration of the same and that the date and time of dispatch of the FIR is shown as 8.5.2019 at 1500 hours. PW4 stated that he affixed panch slips to the seized property. PW4 further deposed that the photographs of the case property were not taken and that the case property was deposited before the court. PW4 testified that there is malkhana to store the case property and a register would be maintained. It is further stated by PW4 that the scene of offence is a partially busy location and it would be easy to secure the presence of inhabitants of the locality. He further deposed that the house numbers of the mediators for the scene of offence panchanama are not mentioned in CDF. PW4 admitted that the confession statement was recorded opposite to Current Office and denied that he did not secure the presence of inhabitants of the said locality. He stated that he did not issue any requisition in writing to the mediators to act as mediators.PW4 admitted that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on each and every page of confession cum seizure panchanama and that the signatures of the mediators are not obtained on first page of seizure panchanama and further that the signatures of the accused persons are not obtained on confession cum seizure panchanama and also on seizure panchanama.PW4 denied that he did not issue requisition to the finger print expert in writing and that the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C are not in his writing. It is denied by PW4 that he did not visit the scene of offence. He admitted that he did not draft the confession cum seizure panchanama in his writing and that the name of scribe is not mentioned in confession cum seizure panchanama. It is denied by PW4 that he foisted false cases and that the accused persons are falsely implicated in all the pending cases in the Police station and that the accused persons are no way concerned with this case.

13. On perusal of the entire evidence available on record, the defacto-complainant deposed that the theft of MO1, MO2 cement bags and other material was committed in the shed near his under construction house at the relevant time mentioned in Ex.P1/report.

PW3 who is the mediator to scene of offence panchanama testified that police conducted panchanama in his presence at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to discredit the testimonies of PW-1 and PW2 with regard to the theft. The testimony of PW4 who is the investigating officer is corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Thus, it can be held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that the theft of MO1, MO2 other material was committed in the house of PW1 as mentioned in Ex.P1/report.

14.Now let us see whether the prosecution is succeeded in proving that the accused

No.1 to 4 committed the theft at the house of PW1. PW.4 who is one of the mediators for

Confession cum seizure panchanama deposed in his chief examination that on 4.7.2019 at 12:00 p.m, Cl of Police summoned him to the place opposite to Current Office,

Khanapuram Haveli and accordingly, he went to the spot and noticed four persons along with police an LED TV and auto ricksaw at the spot. During inquiry the accused no.1 to 4 disclosed their names as Pasuvula Naveen, Sampath, Prasad and Anjibabu and further divulged that they indulged in committed thefts and that they committed theft of Asian paints weighing 20 ltrs, 10 cement bags and crowbar in a shed at Prashanti nagar and several other thefts at various places. PW3 further deposed that LW6/Srinivas was also present along with him at the time of panchanama proceedings. It is further testified by

PW1 that accused no.1 lead him to his house at 3:00 p.m. and showed them the Asian paints weighing 20 ltrs, crowbar and stated that 10 cement bags were sold and spent the sale proceeds were spent for personal use. PW3 identified A1 to A4 who were present in the Court hall as the said four persons and specifically identified A1 as Passuvula Naveen.

PW4 who is the Investigating Officer deposed in consonance with PW3 The testimonies of

PW-4 and PW-5 are consistent and corroborated with each other with regard to that the accused No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft and that the stolen property i.e

MO1 and MO2 were recovered from the possession of A1.

15.At this juncture, it is relevant to take note that section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act envisages that the statement recorded by the police officer in police custody is not admissible in evidence. However, Section.27 of Indian Evidence Act contemplates that when any material object discovered in consequence of information received from the accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, such portion leading to recovery of any material objects is only admissible in evidence. In the instant case, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 coupled with the Ex.P-3/relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama depicting the seizure of MO1 and MO2 to prove that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft at the house of PW-1. The testimonies of PW-3 and

PW-4 are in consonance with each other that the accused No.1 to 4 confessed that they committed theft of M.O.1, MO2 and other materials and that MO1 and MO2 were recovered from the house of accused No.1 basing on the confessional statement of A-1 recorded by PW-4/Investigating Officer. The confession given by the accused No.1 to 4 while they were in the police custody is not admissible in evidence as envisaged under

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, the information leading to recovery of M.O.1 and MO2 is admissible in evidence. Thus, from the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with Ex.P-3/relevant portion in confession cum seizure panchanama, the prosecution could able to establish that M.O.1 and MO2 were recovered from the house of accused No.1 at the instance of his statement.

16.The record manifests that, despite receipt of notice of the petition in Crl.M.P.No.

963/2025, dt. 1.8.2025 filed by PW-1 seeking return of M.O.1 and MO2 towards interim custody, the accused no.1 did not choose to assert any claim over the M.O.1 and M.O.2

17.At this juncture, the presumption under illustration of Sec.114(a) of Indian Evidence

Act can be drawn which contemplates:

“that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”

18.The record manifests that there is no explanation offered by the accused No.1 accounting for the possession or knowledge about whereabouts of the M.O.1 and MO2.

Thus, it can be presumed that accused No. 1 concealed M.O.1 and MO2 knowingly that the same were stolen property. However, in the instant case, there is no direct evidence who witnessed that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft of M.O.1 and MO2.The prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 to 4 committed theft of M.O.1 and MO2 and other material from the house of PW-1 beyond all reasonable doubt, but prosecution could able to establish the ingredients of Sec.411 IPC against the accused No. 1 for possessing stolen property knowingly that the same were stolen property.

19.From the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Sec.457 and 380

IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.

20.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 457 and 380 IPC, however, the accused No.1 found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.248(2)

Cr.P.C.The M.O.1 and MO2 which were returned to PW-1 towards interim custody vide orders in Crl.M.P.No. 963/2025, dated 1.8.2025, shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

(Directly typed by me on the laptop provided by Hon'ble High Court, on 27.8.2025 from 6: 52 p.m. to 7:36 p.m., corrected the draft on 28.8.2025, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of August, 2025).

FAC II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

26.When the accused No.1 questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused

No.1 pleaded for a lenenient view by stating that “ he has two female minor children and old aged parents" and prayed for mercy of the Court.

27.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case to invoke

Sec.360 Cr.P.C., or Sec.3 and 4 of Probation of Offender Act. However, considering the nature of offence and prayer of the accused No.1, I am inclined to take some lenient view in imposing the sentence.

28.The accused No.1 is found guilt for the offence punishable under Sec.411 IPC and he is convicted in terms of Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., and he is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of (6) Months . The period already undergone by the accused shall be given set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

29.The accused No.1 shall undergo the above sentence concurrently along with the sentence imposed in CC No.2614 of 2019, CC 2655 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

30. The accused No.1 is hereby appraised his right to prefer an appeal. The copy of judgment shall be given to the accused on free of cost.

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: I ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

PW-1: M. Venkanna. PW-2: B. Durga Rao. PW-3: M. Balaiah. PW-4: M. Sai Ramana, Investigating Officer.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:

- NONE -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report. Ex.P-2: Crime detail form Ex.P-3: Relevant portion in attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-4: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.:

M.O.1: Crow bar M.O.2: one paint tin Asian weighing 20 ltrs.

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

FAC: II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

OS/100306/2017

Nallapaneni Bhaskar Rao vs Nallapaneni Appa rao and others

29 Sep 2023

1 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 29th day of September, 2023.

Present:- Smt. V. Madhavi, III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Khammam FAC: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

O.S.No. 306 of 2017

Between:

Nallapaneni Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Kasaiah, Age 63 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 3-2-56, Rajiv gunj, Khammam.

... Plaintiff

And

1. Nallapaneni Appa Rao, S/o. Kasaiah, Age 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. R/o. Maddulapalli Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Nallapaneni Narasimha Rao, S/o. Late Rama Rao, Age 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Maddulapalli Village, Khammam rural Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Nallapaneni Krishna Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Maddulapalli Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

4. Dr. Nallapaneni Madhu, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age 45 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner and agriculture, R/o. Flat NO.203, Venkata Tulasi Towers, Behind Bus Depot, Burhanpuram, Khammam.

...Defendants

This suit coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of R. B. Kalyan Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.P.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiffs; and having stood for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men and any other persons claiming on their behalf 2 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award the costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are that:-

The defendant No.1 is the elder brother of plaintiff. The father of defendant No.2 by name Late Rama Rao and father of defendants No.3 and 4 by name, Late Pitchaiah are two other elder brothers of plaintiff and they hail from Madullapalli village. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff by name, Nallapaneni Kasaiah, ancestral lands to an extent of Ac.57.19 gts in Maddulapalli and Gurralapdu village were partitioned in the year 1990, one

Rayala Venkateswarlu, Koti Amaraiah, Kopula Venkata Narsaiah and

Goddugorla Gopaiah acted as elders for the settlement of shares among plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their deceased brothers Pitchaiah and the said

Rama Rao by way of lottery method and the said settlement was reduced into writing on 14.08.1990, rough diagrams of the division of respective lands into separate bits with reference number by way of lottery method were also noted. The plaintiff further submits that the land in Sy.No.163 which is referred as Potu Chenu; land abutting to Suryapet to Khammam road on southern side, land in Sy.No.164 is called Chakali Billa, land in Sy.No.157 is called Yenekarra Chenu and land in Sy.No.114 which is referred as Karnam

Vari Patte are situated at Maddulapalli village and the land in Sy.No.57, 61, 65 an d66 a compact block is referred as Mutarasi Chenu, Tati Chettu and

Banda Polam, Land in Sy.No. 70 is called Golla Chenu, land in Sy.No.75 is called as Yellampalli vari billa situated at Gurralapadu village. The suit schedule property is Item No.4 (eastern side) is situated in potuchenu allocated as part of share of lands in favour of plaintiff. The said settlement deed dt.14.08.1990 comprising of four papers was written by the said Rayala

Venkateswarlu who is one among the elders to the said settlement and one

Vajja Venkaiah, one Veginati Kotaiah attested the said document, the rough 3 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 sketch documents were attested by one Koppula Bhadram. The division of the ancestral property with division of lands were also noted in seven pages.

The said Veginati Kotaiah, the said Goddugorla Gopaiah and the said

Koppula Bhadram are no more.

The name of the plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and two other deceased were mutated in the revenue records. The lands fell to the shares of plaintiff in settlement of partition were entered into the records of right maintained by the revenue authorities (ROR), 1-B register. The ROR title deed No.U 109846 and patta No.152 also issued in favour of plaintiff in respect of

Ac.3.26 gts of suit schedule property apart from other lands which were fell into his share. The plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and uninterrupted enjoyment of land fell to his share and constructed two big sheds bearing No.5-24 and 5-25 by obtaining electricity connection

No.3030800369 in the suit schedule property about 15 years ago. In one of the sheds Ramesh Daaba hotel is running on rental basis apart from the pan shop in small bunk on the edge of western boundary of suit schedule property by the tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been regularly paying taxes and electricity charges to the concerned authorities. The suit schedule property is situated in the outskirts of Khammam town and Kodad X Roads and its value has been increased in the course of time due to development of business activities nearby the suit schedule property. The plaintiff got converted the suit schedule property into non-agricultural purpose by paying

Rs.99,225/- vide proceedings Dis No.A4/10022/2014 dt.31.12.2014 of

Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and also got approval from Gram

Panchayat, Maddulapally for the laying house plots vide R.C.No.79/2016 dt.11.10.2016. Thus the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submits that the development of the property has become eye sore to the defendants. While things stood so, one week back prior to the institution of the suit, the defendants along 4 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 with henchmen tried to disturb the pan shop bunk and daaba hotel business of tenant of the plaintiff and tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and such illegal activities were resisted by plaintiff with the help of local persons. On 09.05.2017, the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by intimidating the tenant of the plaintiff to vacate or else to face dire consequences in case he did not get away from the suit schedule property within two days. The Defendant No.1 is politically influential person affiliated to ruling party and he is also provided with gunman security. The police are inept to take any action against him as the matter is civil in nature. The plaintiff could not resist the illegal acts of the defendant and could not secure his interest over the suit schedule property without illegal sources. Hence the present suit.

3. Summons served on the defendant and the defendants filed a detailed written statement.

4.Brief averments of written statement:

The defendants filed the written statement and vehemently denied all the allegations levelled against them in the plaint and further stated that neither the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said property nor he is in possession of the same and that the plaintiff, defendants and other family members who hail from Maddulapalli are in joint and constructive possession of the suit schedule property apart from other properties belonging to joint family were not partitioned as mentioned by the plaintiff. The defendants further stated that neither there was any settlement nor any shares were allotted as per the alleged settlement deed by the elders, the plaintiff came forward with an evil intention to grab the suit schedule property taking advantage of records showing the property in his name even though the same was enjoyed by the joint family members. The defendants submitted 5 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 that the name of parties entered into the revenue records in respect of some of the properties held by joint family, it was so, only for obtaining loans in the name of individual persons and not on account of any alleged partition among the joint family members. However, any property standing in the name of any member, is being enjoyed by all joint family members for the benefit of joint family only and further submitted that the plaintiff only to grab the property filed the present suit and that they would file separate suit for partition and separate possession and hence prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the averments of the plaint and written statements, the court have framed the issues on 31.10.2017 as follows:

1. Whether the Plaintiff was in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?

3. To what relief ?

6.During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to A15 were got marked. After completion of the plaintiff evidence, DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of the defendants but no documents were marked on their behalf. However, the evidence of

DW2 has been eschewed by this court.

7.Heard arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs and learned counsel for defendants.

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and other two brothers, who were died, partitioned the suit schedule property among themselves in presence of PW1, PW2, one K. Venkata Narasaiah and G.

6 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023

Gopaiah who acted as elders and that the PW2 scribed the said draft settlement deed dt.14.08.1990/Ex.A1 and further that the rough sketch was drawn which comprises of 7 pages and the same was attested by one K.

Bhadram who is no more. The plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and his two deceased brothers mutated their respective shares in the revenue records and that the plaintiff raised construction of two shops over the land fell into his share and let out the same to one hotel and in another share the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

9.The case of the defendant is that the joint family property has not been partitioned as contended by the plaintiff and that the Ex.A1 was created and fabricated one for the purpose of this case.

10.The learned counsel of the plaintiffs contended that defendant No.3 admitted the execution of settlement deed/Ex.A1 in a suit filed by DW1,

Defendant No.4, their mother and sister in O.S.No.597/2020 on the file of

Mobile Court, Khammam.

11.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW3 and got examined PW1 and PW2 who were eye witness and scribe of Ex.A1. It is settled principle of law that the family settlement can be made through unregistered sale deed.Though it is the case of the defendants that they would file separate suit for partition of the family properties including suit schedule properties, the record is silent with respect to the filing of any suit seeking such relief by the defendants. Defendants admitted that the name of plaintiff was not mutated in respect of suit schedule property and further that they also got mutated their names in respect of certain properties which clearly shows that there are certain mutations apart from the mutation of the suit schedule property was made in the revenue records subsequent to 7 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023

Ex.A1 dt.14.08.1990. It is pertinent to note here that the DW1 admitted that he filed suit in O.S.No.597/2020 on the file of Mobile Court, Khammam relying upon the contents of Ex.A1. PW2 who is the scribe of the Ex.A1 categorically stated that he scribed the settlement deed dt.14.08.1990 in his own hand writing. PW1 stated that he acted as attesting witness of the

Ex.A1/Settlement deed and also testified that the Ex.A1 was drafted in his presence. It is apposite to take note at this juncture that during the cross- examination, DW1 categorically admitted that the shops were constructed by plaintiff in the suit schedule property and that he filed a civil suit vide

O.S.No.597/2020 mentioning that the joint family properties were partitioned

among them in presence of elders on 14.08.1990 which has been marked as

Ex.A9 in the said suit. DW1 also admitted that Ex.A10/agreement dt.19.08.1990 executed in the presence of elders contains the signatures of his father and one N. Rama Rao and that basing upon the same, the original of Ex.A1 was drafted subsequently on 14.08.1990. DW1 fairly admitted that the Ex.A9/CC of plaint in O.S.No.597/2020 and Ex.A10/partition settlement deed which is nothing but copy of Ex.A1 was filed by him in the said

O.S.No.597/2020 in support of his claim.DW1 further admitted that he along

with D2 and D4 sold the land of others which is marked as Ex.A11 vide document No.62502015 which is the part and parcel of Ex.A1. DW1 further admitted the signature of his father over the sale document dt.05.06.1994 and denied the signature of defendant No.1 on it. While doing so, DW1 stated that stamp duty on sale agreement belongs to 30 years ago but the contents of the document were drafted two years ago. DW1 further denied that his father sold the property to an extent of Ac.1.26 in Sy.No.157 and

Ac.0.5 ½ gts in Sy.No.164 in which D1 is one of the attestor.

12.The defendant, on one hand, contended that the joint family properties were not partitioned under Ex.A1, however, DW1 on the other hand, admitted 8 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 that he along with defendant No.2, 4 has sold the land to third parties on 21.11.2016 vide document No.6250/2016 under Ex.A11 which were obtained by them by virtue of Ex.A1. Thus, it is disclosed that the D2 and D4, by virtue of partition as averred by the plaintiff took place among the family members subsequent alienation were also made in respect of joint family properties after 14.08.1990 after executing Ex.A1. DW1 fairly admitted that he filed Ex.A10 in his favour in O.S.No.597/2020 which is nothing but Ex.A1 in the instant case and it clearly shows that the DW1 admitted the contents of

Ex.A1 as he filed the said suit by relying upon the same in O.S.No.597/2020 in his favour.

13.It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment by virtue of Ex.A1/settlement deed which was drafted by PW2 in the presence of other witnesses. The defendant denied the settlement under

Ex.A1 and that the ancestral property was not partitioned among the plaintiff, defendant and other family members. As it could be seen from

Ex.A9/certified copy of petition 597/2021 on the file of Mobile Court, the defendant relied upon the settlement deed dt.14.08.1990, which is nothing but the Ex.A1 in this case in support of his case, to show that certain property fell into his share in the said suit. It is pertinent to note here that DW1 admitted the signature of his father on Ex.A1 and again denied his signature on Ex.A1 and further stated that stamp duty which appears on sale agreement is beyond 30 years ago but the contents seem to be drafted two months ago. The defendant in his cross-examination admitted that he along with D2 and D4 sold the land to third parties on 21.11.2016 vide Ex.A11 document No.6250/2016 which is part and parcel of Ex.A1 partition deed. It is crystal clear that the defendant No.1 along with D2 and D4 acted upon, by virtue of Ex.A1 and sold the land to third parties vide Ex.A11 which clearly establishes that there are subsequent alienation of certain property by the 9 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 defendants out of the ancestral properties covered under Ex.A1. It is further appropriate to note that the defendant No.3 /DW1 admitted that his father sold the land in Sy.No.66 to an extent of 3250 sq.yds which fell to his share of joint family property and he further added that the sale proceeds were shared among all the family members. It is pertinent to mention the extract from the cross-examination of DW1 which read as “the undivided 115 acres of land of joint family property is in the name of my family members ie.,

Nallapuneni Appa Rao/D1, Nallapuneni Pullamma W/o. Rama Rao, D2 S/o.

Rama Rao, myself, my brother defendant No.4 and mother Nallapueneni

Kasthuri are legal heirs of deceased Nallapuneni Pichaiah and plaintiff are joint family members and they possessed ROR title deed has pattedars. The extent of land ie., Ac.1.26 gts in Sy.No.157 and Ac.0.5 ½ gts in Sy.No.164 is not updated in ROR title deed as pattedars either in my father name or any of the above said family members”. Though the defendant/DW1 admitted the land to an extent of 1.26 gts in Sy.No.157 and Ac.0.5 ½ in Sy.No.164 is updated in ROR either in his father’s name or any other family members.

The witness further stated that the said property is alienated to third parties by illegal means but the defendant failed to elicit anything about the illegal means in deviating the property. The defendant on one hand denied that the plaintiff got the share of land which is situated in Sy.No.163 containing one

Dhaba hotel which is situated on the eastern side of the land and on the other hand DW1 admitted that the share of plaintiff there is Dhaba Hotel since 15 years and in Sy.No.163 which contains total extent of Ac.14.26 gts.

DW1 who is defendant No.3 admitted that his boundaries of property is on the eastern side of the share of the plaintiff. In the light of above discussion coupled with property tax receipts/Ex.A7 depicts that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property. Hence it can be held that the plaintiff is succeeded in proving that the partition was made in respect of the joint family properties including suit schedule properties as per the settlement 10 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023 deed/Ex.A1. In the light of above discussion coupled with Ex.A1 to A15, it can be held that the plaintiff succeeded to establish that he is in possession of the suit schedule property which is the essential ingredient to seek perpetual injunction. Since the plaintiff apprehended danger of his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property in the hands of defendants, it is just and necessary to restrain the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property by granting injunction as prayed for. The issues

No.1 to 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants holding that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff by restraining the defendants, their men and any other persons claiming on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of September, 2023.

FAC: II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

PW.1: K. Amaraiah DW1: N. Krishna Rao PW2: R. VenkateswarluDW2: N. Appa Rao PW3: N. Bhaskar Rao 11 O.S.No.306/2017 dt.29.09.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Photocopy copy of draft settlement (4 pages) (subject to objection).

Ex.A2 is original of ROR title deed No.109846 with patta No.152 issued in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A3 is ROR 1-B extract pertaining to lands of plaintiffs including suit schedule property obtained in Mee-seva.

Ex.A4 is Pahani extracts for the years 2013-14 to 2015-16 pertaining to suit schedule property obtained from Mee-seva.

Ex.A5 is Original Land conversion proceedings issued by RDO, Khammam pertaining to suit schedule land, along with sketch. Ex.A6 is original layout approval resolution passed by Grampanchayat Maddulapalli for suit schedule property.

Ex.A7 is original property tax receipts (2 in number) pertaining to H.No.5-24 and 5-25 issued by Grampanchayat Maddulapalli village in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A8 is Original Electricity bill and receipt for S.C.No.3030800369 issue in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A9 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.597/2020 on the file of Spl. Mobile Court, Khammam.

Ex.A10 is Photocopy copy of settlement deed (4 pages)

Ex.A11 is Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed No.6250/2016 dt.21.11.2016.

Ex.A12 is certified copy of Regd. Sale deed No.99/2005 dt.12.01.2005.

Ex.A13 is Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed No.2537/2007 dt.28.05.2007

Ex.A14 is certified coy of Regd. Sale deed No.100/2005 dt.12.01.2005

Ex.A15 is certified copy of Regd. Agreement of sale cum GPA No.2536/2007 dt.28.05.2007.

For Defendant:- -NIL-

FAC: II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

DVC/3/2021

Bestha Srujana vs Bestha Ramachandra Pankaj

29 Sep 2023

1 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT KHAMMAM

Present:- Smt.V.Madhavi, III Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I class, Khammam, FAC. II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I class, Khammam.

Dated this, the 29th day of September, 2023.

DVC No.3/2021

Between:-

1. Bestha Srujana, W/o.Ramachandra Pankaj, D/o. Mala Samuel, Age: 32 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o. H.No.8-4-53, Venugopal Nagar-2, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

2. Bestha Snigdha, D/o. Ramachandra Pankaj, Age: 6 years, Occ: Student, (being minor represented by her mother i.e., petitioner No.1), R/o. H.No.8-4- 53, Venugopal Nagar-2, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

…Petitioners

And

1. Bestha Ramachandra Pankaj, S/o Late Azaraiah, Age: 36 years, Occu: Bank Employee, O/o. DCC Bank Ltd, Thiryani Mandal, Asifabad District, R/o H.No. 1-522/1, Road No.1, RR Nagar, Machiryal town, N/o H.No.5-4-34/1, Seetarampuram Village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District- R1

2. Bestha Padma Rekha, W/o Late Azaraiah, Age: 55 years, Occu: Household, H.No.5-4-34/1, Seetarampuram Village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District - R2

3. Bestha Adam, S/o Late Mathew, Age: 60 years, Occu: Rtd. Bank Employee, R/o H.No.5-4-33, Seetarampuram Village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District.- R5 … Respondents No.1, 2 and 5

This case came for final hearing before me on 15.09.2023 in the presence of Sri Maddela Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the petitioners, whereas respondents remained exparte; and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with a prayer to:

1) To grant maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent No.1 as envisaged U/Sec 20 (1) (d) and Sec. 20 (2) of the Act.

2)To provide Rs.5000/- per month from the respondent No.1 to the complainant No. 1 for the alternative accommodation at Khammam as envisaged U/Sec.19 (1) (f) of the Act.

3)To grant compensation of Rs.50.00 lakhs from the respondent No.1 as envisaged U/Sec. 22 of the Act.

4)To grant orders for continuation of custody of children in her favour as envisaged U/Sec.21 of Act.

5)To restrain the respondent No.1 from alienating or creating any charge of any nature on the said immovable properties ie., agricultural land and house situated at Maripeda of Mahabubabad District.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that: a) Petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage was performed on 06-02-2013 at Shalom Church, Maripeda (V&M), Mahabubabad District, as per the rites and customs prevailing in Christian community. Out of their wedlock Petitioner No.2 was born, who is aged about 6 years. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner no.1 gave Rs.4,00,000/- cash towards dowry apart from 10 Tulas of gold ornaments and 10 Tulas of Silver ornaments and gold chain weighing one tula to the respondent No.1, besides presenting household articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 by fulfilling their demands apart from the amounts spent towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, the petitioner no.1 and respondent No.1 led happy marital life for a period of one year. In fact, since beginning all the respondents including the respondent No.1 started harassing the petitioner no.1 in one way or the other by demanding dowry amount from her parents and also used to insult and abuse her. The respondent No. 1 used to behave 3 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

harshly with the petitioner no.1 and not allowed her to talk to her parents and relatives even through the phone. The respondents restricted the movements of the petitioner No 1 in the house and not allowed her even to have sufficient food and clothing. The respondent's attitude, conduct and behaviour towards the petitioner No.1 is indignant. The respondent abused, insulted the petitioner which was humiliating in front of others. The behavior of the respondents caused much mental agony, pain and shame to the petitioner no.1. The respondent No.1 developed aversion, apathy towards her and unnecessarily creates commotion in the house and beat the petitioner no.1 indiscriminately. Further, the respondent no.1 used to say that the petitioner no.1 is not beautiful with no fair colour and that the dowry amount given to them are insufficient and further stated he gets huge amounts of dowry if he marries another beautiful girl. The parents of petitioner fulfilled the demands of respondent No.1 as and when he demanded in order to protect the matrimonial life of the petitioner No.1. But the respondents did not change their attitude and continued to demand additional dowry amount. The petitioner no.1 bore all the cruelty and adamant behavior of the respondents with a fond hope that one day they would change their attitude, but in vain.

b)It is further submitted by petitioner No.1 that when petitioner no.1 become pregnant, the respondent No.1 forcibly dropped her at her parental house by saying he was not suppose to bear the expenses. Since then the petitioner No.1 stayed at her parental house. The respondent No.1 visited her after two months and whenever he visits her, he used to abuse her in filthy language. Further on 19-06-2014 the petitioner no.1 gave birth to a female 4 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

child and informed the same to the respondents, but surprisingly no one from the respondents side including the respondent No.1 visited the petitioner no.1 to see the newborn baby, on the ground that the petitioner No.1 gave birth to a female child. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 used to make phone calls and abused the petitioner. After some months, the parents of the petitioner

No.1 dropped the petitioners at the house of respondent No. 1 situated at

Bellampalli. But within a month, all the respondents subjected petitioner No.1 to severe mental and physical harassment for want of additional dowry of

Rs.5,00,000/- finally, in the month of September, 2018 they necked her out of their house demanding her to bring additional dowry amount if she wants to stay with them. As a preplan the respondent No.1 filed a petition against the petitioner no.1 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Hon’ble III Addl.

District Judge at Asifabad court vide DOP No. 144/2016, on the ground that

she intentionally deserted him. The respondent no.1 threatened petitioner

No.1 that if she would not provide Rs.5,00,000/- he would file another petition seeking divorce. The petitioner no.1 with her hard earned amount provided

Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.1, as such, the respondent No.1 withdrawn the above DOP No. 144/2016. But the respondent No.1 did not take back the petitioner no.1 to his conjugal company and postponed the same whenever she requested. The respondent No.5 and one Bestha Kalavathi who are uncle and aunt of the respondent No. 1 are having major role in harassing the petitioner No. 1.

c)Vexed with the evasive attitude of the respondent No.1, the petitioner no.1 made a complaint before P.S. Manugur against the respondents, in the 5 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

month of April, 2017. The police called the respondents and questioned about their behavior, then the respondent No.1 gave an undertaking before the police authorities that he would not harass the petitioner No.1 in future and he would take back her to his company within a couple of days. Instead of taking her back, the respondent No.1 got convened a panchayath before his elders during which he openly demanded the amount out of his retirement benefits from the father of the petitioner no.1 by name Mala Samuel, otherwise he was not supposed to lead marital life with the petitioner No.1.

On 11-04-2019 when the father of the petitioner no.1 died due to heart attack, the respondent No. 1 did not attend his funerals and other ceremonies. Since then the respondent No.1 used to make phone calls and demanded for

additional dowry amount from the petitioner No.1. On 22-02-2020 the

petitioner no.1 lodged a report with P.S. Women Khammam against the respondents and in turn, the police registered a case in Cr.No.22/2020,

U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, and the same is pending. The respondent No.1 filed a petition seeking divorce against the petitioner no. 1

before II Addl. District and Sessions Court (FTC), Manchiriya vide DOP No.

10/2019. The petitioners being the victims of the domestic violence caused by the respondent No.1 and depending upon her old aged parents, since she is not having any source of income.

d)In view of the above facts and circumstances submitted by the complainants a precarious situation prevailed wherein the respondents are torturing the petitioners both physically and mentally. The respondent who has the bounded duty to maintain the petitioner no.2 neglected to do so 6 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

inspite of having sufficient funds. The respondent No.1 is a Branch Manager,

DCCB Bank, Manchiryal Branch and used to draw Rs.60,000/- per month as salary. Apart from that, he has residential house and house plots, and has other source of income. The petitioner, as being the victim of physical and mental torture meted out in the hands of the respondent No.1 and having been driven out from the house of respondent No.1 without there being any shelter and any sources of livelihood, completely depending upon her mother.

The petitioner no.2 is minor daughter of the respondent No.1, who is in care and custody of petitioner No.1 entitled to maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondent considering the basic needs and educational expenses, maintenance according to family status and the petitioner prayed the court to allow the petition by granting the reliefs as prayed in the petition.

3. On careful perusal of the contents of the petition, this court registered the same as DVC case and notice was given to other side. But inspite of ample opportunities given to respondents no.1,2 and 5 they failed to appear before the court. Hence, the Respondents no.1,2 and 5 were made as ex-parte on 20.10.2022.

4. The petitioner examined herself as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is the marriage photos of the complainant and respondent no.1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

7 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

6.The following points would arise for consideration:

1.Whether the complainant no.2 is entitled to claim the maintenance at the Rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and the respondent no.1 is both legally and morally duty bounded to provide the same ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the provisions for the alternative accommodation at Khammam or in the alternative to seek the rent of Rs.5,000/- per month, to secure such alternative accommodation on rent ?

3.Whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to claim the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondent no.1 ?

4.Whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to have the order for continuance of the petitioner no.2 in the custody of the petitioner no.1 without any interruption by the respondent no.1 ?

5.Whether the petitioners are entitled to restrain the respondent no.1 from alienating or creating any change of any nature on the immovable properties i.e., Agricultural lands and house situated at Maripeda of Mahabubabad District ?

Point No.1:

“Whether the complainant no.2 is entitled to claim the maintenance at the Rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and the respondent no.1 is both legally and morally duty bounded to provide the same?”

7.It is averred by the Petitioners that the petitioner No.1 that is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of respondent No.1 and that they are residing separately due to the harassment metted out by the petitioner No.1 in the hands of respondents. The above contentions remained unrebutted as the respondents did not choose to file counter. It is stated by petitioner No.1 in her evidence that respondent No.1 is working as Branch Manager and getting a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and that he has residential house plots and other source of income but, he neglected to maintain them. This testimony of petitioner No.1 remained unchallenged. As noticed above, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. There is no material on record to show that the respondent is providing any maintenance to the petitioner No.2. As could be 8 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

seen from the record the petitioner No.1 is a bank employee and earning a decent amount to maintain herself. Respondent No.1 being the father of petitioner No.2 is under legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to meet the education and other expenses of the petitioner No.2. Therefore, the amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is granted towards the maintenance of the petitioner no.2 can be said to be a just and reasonable one. This point is, therefore, answered in favour of the petitioner no.2 holding that she is entitled for Rs.15,000/- per month from respondent No.1 towards her maintenance.

Point No.2:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek the provisions for the alternative accommodation at Khammam or in the alternative to seek the rent of Rs.5,000/- per month, to secure such alternative accommodation on rent ?”

8.In view of the allegations of harassment metted out by the petitioner no.1 in the hands of respondents and in view of the contention that she was necked out by the respondent no.1, shared house hold cannot be granted and an alternate accommodation can be granted. In view of the standard of living, of respondents and petitioner No.1 and the place of living ie., Khammam which is a city, I am of considered opinion that an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month payable by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner No.1 towards alternate accommodation. Hence, this point is answered.

Point No.3:

“Whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to claim the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondent no.1 ?”

9.In view of the allegations made by the petitioner no.1 that she was physically and mentally harassed by the respondent no.1 which was not 9 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

rebutted by the respondent, it can be held that the petitioner No.1 proved her contention in respect of respondent No.1 only. A perusal of entire record, it does not discloses any specific allegation against respondent No.2 and 5. It is appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner No.1.

Hence, this point is answered.

Point No.4:

“Whether the petitioner no.1 is entitled to have the order for continuance of the petitioner no.2 in the custody of the petitioner no.1 without any interruption by the respondent no.1 ?”

10.The the petitioner no.2 is a female child aged about 8 years old. On considering the necessities of the female child and on considering the paramount interest of petitioner No.2, it is appropriate that the mother would be the natural guardian to her. Hence, this point is answered.

Point No.5:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to restrain the respondent no.1 from alienating or creating any change of any nature on the immovable properties i.e., Agricultural lands and house situated at Maripeda of Mahabubabad District ?”

11.In view of the allegations made by the petitioner no.1 that respondent no.1 is trying to alienate the properties i.e., agricultural lands and house situated at Maripeda of Mahabubabad District but petitioner no.1 did not produce any documents to that effect. In support of the above allegation, the petitioner failed to produce any document to show that the respondent has immovable properties and there is no material to show the mode of acquiring of any property. Hence, this court could not pass any orders in respect of the 10 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

properties by restraining the respondent No.1 from alienating or creating any charge of any nature on the said immovable properties in any manner. Hence, this point is answered.

12. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part.

i. The respondent No.1 is here by directed to pay maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month to the Petitioner

No.2, on or before 10th of each succeeding month. The maintenance shall be paid from the date of the filing of the petition.

ii.The petitioners are entitled to seek the rent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand only) per month payable by the respondent no.1, on or before 10th of each succeeding month for alternative accommodation.

iii.The petitioner no.1 is entitled to claim the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) from the respondent no.1.

iv.Further The petitioner no.2 is continued to be in the custody of petitioner no.1.

The respondent No.1 is further ordered to pay the arrears of maintenance to petitioner no.2 within Six months failing which the petitioners are at liberty to take necessary legal steps for recovery of arrears of maintenance.

There is no order as to the costs.

11 DVC.No.03/2021, dt.29.09.2023.

The office is directed to provide free copy of order as envisaged under section 24 of the Act.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29thday of September, 2023.

FAC.II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For petitioners: For Respondents:-

P.W.1:Bestha Srujana --None—

EXHIBITS MARKED

For petitioners:

Ex.P1: is the the marriage photo of the complainant and respondent no.1.

For Respondents

--Nil--

FAC.II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM

Order Record 8,535 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/400299/2018	SHO PS Raghunadhapalem vs Bhukya. Ranjit Kumar and other	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/400843/2018	SHO PS Raghunadhapalem vs Akki.Jayamma	31 Dec 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1193/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS KONIJERLA vs Pamulapati Srinivasa Raddy	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/2617/2020	P.S Raghunadhapalem vs Dhaniyakula Sairam	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1284/2020	PS III Town Khammam vs Bethi Chiranjeevi @ Ravi	10 Dec 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1422/2025	PS Khammam III Town vs Prasad Pilligundla	05 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2150/2020	PS Khammam III Town vs Mamillapalli rambabu	04 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400444/2018	sho ps R.palem vs Vsmanda venkanna and 4 others	04 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/427/2025	Ajmeera Mangi vs Keloth Lovaiah	02 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/469/2025	Doddapaneni Bhadramma vs Koyinni Rama Rao	02 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2476/2021	PS.Chinthakani vs Uppathala Rojarao	02 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/85/2025	Shaik Aarifa vs Shaik Kutub Ahmad	01 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400934/2018	SHO PS Raghunadhapalem vs M.Ranga	26 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/829/2020	Vangala Srikanth vs Pillutla N Raja Gangadhar	25 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/228/2023	Kutumbaka Naresh vs Samineni (Kutumbaka) Swapna	21 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2360/2020	P.S KHAMMAM III Town vs Dussa Balaji	17 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400237/2018	R.palem vs Inapala parusharam and others	17 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2173/2020	PS Khammam III Town vs Ravulapalli rama Krishna	12 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/27/2021	P.S Konijerla vs Challagundla Ramaiah	11 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1850/2022	SHO KAREPALLY vs Banoth Gandhi	11 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400191/2018	Sho. Ps. Konijerla vs Gantala. Seeta ramachary and others (2)	10 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/86/2024	Bank of Baroda ,Gandhi Chowk,Khammam,represented by its Chief Manager Sri Santi Suresh vs Vadiyala Niranjan	07 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/3437/2025	PS Khammam III TN vs Karunasri Yalakarajula	07 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/1201/2022	Nanekayala Srinivasa Rao vs Yellanki Rama Rao	06 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1171/2021	PS.Chinthakani vs Pamu Babu	06 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/3205/2019	Khaja Ramesh Kumar vs Vanam Rohini Kumar	06 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/527/2021	PS Konijerla vs Ekkirala Krishna @ Balakrishna	04 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/9/2022	Erukulla Suresh vs Kambampati Soma Sundara Guptha	03 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2580/2025	PS Konijerla vs Nagachary Vanathadapala	03 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/603/2022	Kunduru Upendar Reddy vs JonnalaGadda Eswaramma	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1748/2019	SHO PS Raghunadhapalem vs Manda Venkateswarlu @ Venkataiah	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1878/2025	P.S Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2175/2025	PS. Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2176/2025	PS. Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2177/2025	PS. Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2178/2025	PS. Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2179/2025	PS. Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2182/2025	P.S Karepally vs Punem Raju	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1508/2020	P.S Chinthakani vs Puli Chandrashekar	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1844/2019	The SHO P.S Raghunadhapalem vs Parvatha Yelleswar Rao	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2567/2020	PS Konijerla vs Kommineni Lenin babu	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/819/2020	PS Khammam III Town vs Thota Usha	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/4284/2019	R/o. Chimmapudi of Raghunadhapalem mandal. vs Chandrakani Upendar	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400001/2018	sho 3 town kmm vs Vspulli kalyan	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/935/2021	PS Chinthakani vs Vsshaik saida Miya	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/495/2020	PS Konijerla vs Godla Venkati	24 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2337/2022	PS.Karepally vs Nukala Venkateswarlu	23 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/7/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA, PS KONIJERLA vs Vema Anil	08 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/147/2021	PS Konijerla vs Orsu Srinu	06 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2125/2020	P.S Konijerla vs Pittala Ramesh	06 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
CC/262/2021	P.S Konijerla vs Duggineni Nageswara Rao	18 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/3/2019	SHO PS Chinthakani vs Mogili Srinivasa Rao	16 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1771/2021	P.S. Konijerla vs Makkela Narasimharao	16 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2569/2020	PS Konijerla vs Dirishala Rakesh	16 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/400439/2018	sho ps chinthakani vs Ithanapally pullaran and 2 others	09 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/4263/2019	PS Chinthakani vs Bandla Saideswarrao @ Saidulu	08 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/258/2020	Gurram Prasad vs Vanama Murali Krishna	04 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2109/2025	P.S Raghunadhapalem vs Ravi Bukya	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
CC/2190/2025	P.S Khammam III Town vs Imam Khan Patan	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2681/2025	PS Raghunadapalem vs P. Venugopal	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2682/2025	PS Raghunadapalem vs Thumu Venkateswarlu	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2683/2025	PS Raghunadapalem vs K. Ramakrishna	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2684/2025	PS Raghunadapalem vs A. Suresh	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2685/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs M.Rukmandha rao	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2686/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs CH.Peddabbai	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2687/2025	PS.Khammam III Town vs V.Raju	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2688/2025	PS.Khammam III Town vs PS.Khammam III Town	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2689/2025	PS.Khammam III Town vs Ushaik	04 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2583/2025	PS.KAREPALLY vs P.Sai ram	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2584/2025	PS.KAREPALLY vs B.Gopinadh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2585/2025	PS.KHAMMAM III TOWN vs A.Mahesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2586/2025	PS.KHAMMAM III TOWN vs A.Ramesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2587/2025	PS.KHAMMAM III TOWN vs M.Narayana Rao	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2588/2025	PS.KHAMMAM III TOWN vs Yerra Venkatesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2589/2025	PS.KHAMMAM III TOWN vs G.Anil kumar	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2633/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Kodari Sambasiva	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2638/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Cheemala Sudheer kumar	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2642/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Addanki Ramesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2643/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Tholupunuri Uma Bhasker	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2646/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Boda Ganesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2647/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Jaladi Srinu	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2648/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs PANDULA RAMESH	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2649/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Domala Sanjay	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2653/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Mulkalapali Nageswar rao	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2656/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Gangarapu Umesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2659/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Banoth Mansingh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2662/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Yarasangi Vinay Kumar	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2665/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Gundla Lachaiah	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2667/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Rekha Venesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2673/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Thumetla Nagaraju	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2674/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Kurri Rama Krishna	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2675/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Sanga Suresh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2676/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Keloth Ravi	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2677/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Thota Lakshman Raju	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2678/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Meriga Nagendra Babu	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2679/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Banoth Suman	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
STC/2680/2025	PS.RAGHUNADHAPALEM vs Guguloth Laxma	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
ARBEP/40/2024	Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt. Ltd.,Khammam Branch vs Bumipaga Dinesh	03 Sep 2025	Order	—
EP/25/2020	Mohammad Rafi Ahmed vs Shaik Yakub	02 Sep 2025	Order	—
OS/3/2022	Yarlaguntla Gurulingam vs Yarlaguntla Rajesh	02 Sep 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 8,535 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2025		12
Nov 2025		18
Oct 2025		22
Sep 2025		86
Aug 2025		67
Jul 2025		65
Jun 2025		449
May 2025		35
Apr 2025		72
Mar 2025		502
Feb 2025		36
Jan 2025		60

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA handled?

SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA has handled 8612 court orders since 2023 at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 309 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA hear?

Based on available records, SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA currently posted?

SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA available online?

Yes. 26 judgments by SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA dispose cases?

SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA disposes approximately 309 cases per month, based on 8612 orders handled over their tenure at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA serving?

SMT. MADHAVI VINUKONDA has been serving at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex since 2023.

Case Types

STC 58%

CC 32%

OS 5%

CRLMP 2%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

DVC 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

Jun 2025 — Aug 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 29 orders
Oct 2023 — Feb 2024

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 292 orders
May 2023 — May 2023

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 2 orders
May 2023 — May 2023

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 2 orders
May 2023 — Oct 2023

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 1,732 orders
May 2023 — Apr 2026

III Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 6,555 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Convicted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G. Raja Gopal

Prinicpal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

811 orders

Sri Bakaraju Srinivasa Rao

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

84 orders

Vasukala Sreenaiah

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

50 orders

Dr. G.v. Mahesh Naath

Judge, Family Court -cum- IV Additional District a...

24 orders

Dr. Pullabhatla Pogada Krishna Arjun

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs...

30 orders

Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

2,113 orders

Jyothirmai Kakumani

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

Smt. Rajani Bekkam

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judi...

1,909 orders

Ms.Yepuri Bindu Priya

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

344 orders

Mr. Arava Praveen

III Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additi...

0 orders

Ms. G.Akhila Goud

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

316 orders

Smt. M. Kalpana

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessi...

744 orders

Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional A...

1,229 orders

T.Murali Mohan

II Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional...

152 orders

Vasukula Sreenaiah

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking...

228 orders

← View all judges at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex